The Dominican Republic has met all aspects of the terms of reference (OECD, 2021[3]) (ToR) for the calendar year 2021 (year in review), and no recommendations are made.
The Dominican Republic can legally issue five types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.
In practice, The Dominican Republic issued rulings within the scope of the transparency framework as follows:
|
Type of ruling |
Number of rulings |
|---|---|
|
Future rulings in the period 1 March 2019 – 31 December 2019 |
23 |
|
Future rulings in the calendar year 2020 |
57 |
|
Future rulings in the year in review |
83 |
Peer input was received from two jurisdictions in respect of the exchanges of information on rulings received from The Dominican Republic. The input was positive, noting that information was complete, in a correct format and received in a timely manner.
376. The Dominican Republic can legally issue the following five types of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: (i) preferential regimes;1 (ii) cross-border unilateral APAs and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles; (iii) rulings providing for unilateral downward adjustments; (iv) permanent establishment rulings; and (v) related party conduit rulings.
377. For the Dominican Republic, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued prior to 1 March 2019. However, there is no obligation for the Dominican Republic to conduct spontaneous exchange information on past rulings. Future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 March 2019.
378. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that the Dominican Republic’s undertakings to identify past and future rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. In addition, it was determined that the Dominican Republic’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. The Dominican Republic’s implementation remains unchanged, and therefore continues to meet the minimum standard.
379. The Dominican Republic has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process and no recommendations are made.
380. The Dominican Republic has the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. The Dominican Republic notes that there are no legal or practical impediments that prevent the spontaneous exchange of information on rulings as contemplated in the Action 5 minimum standard.
381. The Dominican Republic has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including: (i) the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[1]) (“the Convention”) and (ii) bilateral agreements in force with three jurisdictions.2
382. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that the Dominican Republic experienced delays for the exchange of information on rulings, which for the previous year was also related to the fact that the relevant officials needed to telework because of the Covid-19 pandemic. It was determined that the Dominican Republic’s process for the completion and exchange of templates met all the ToR, except for the timely exchange of information on rulings (ToR II.B).
383. During the year in review, the Dominican Republic confirms that information on all rulings issued in the year in review were exchanged in a timely manner. Therefore, the recommendation to ensure that the exchanges of information on rulings occur as soon as possible can now be removed.
384. For the year in review, the timeliness of exchanges is as follows:
|
Future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework |
Number of exchanges transmitted within three months of the information becoming available to the competent authority or immediately after legal impediments have been lifted |
Delayed exchanges |
||
|
Number of exchanges transmitted later than three months of the information on rulings becoming available to the competent authority |
Reasons for the delays |
Any other comments |
||
|
134 |
0 |
N/A |
N/A |
|
|
Follow-up requests received for exchange of the ruling |
Number |
Average time to provide response |
Number of requests not answered |
|
0 |
N/A |
N/A |
385. The Dominican Republic has the necessary legal basis for spontaneous exchange of information, a process for completing the templates in a timely way and has completed all exchanges. The Dominican Republic has met all of the ToR for the exchange of information process and no recommendations are made.
386. The statistics for the year in review are as follows:
|
Category of ruling |
Number of exchanges |
Jurisdictions exchanged with |
|---|---|---|
|
Ruling related to a preferential regime |
0 |
N/A |
|
Cross-border unilateral APAs and any other cross-border unilateral tax rulings (such as an advance tax ruling) covering transfer pricing or the application of transfer pricing principles |
134 |
Barbados, Canada, Costa Rica, Curaçao, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Panama, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Spain, Switzerland, Uruguay, United States |
|
Cross-border rulings providing for a unilateral downward adjustment to the taxpayer’s taxable profits that is not directly reflected in the taxpayer’s financial / commercial accounts |
0 |
N/A |
|
Permanent establishment rulings |
0 |
N/A |
|
Related party conduit rulings |
0 |
N/A |
|
Total |
134 |
387. The Dominican Republic does not offer an intellectual property regime for which transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[2]) were imposed.
|
Aspect of implementation of the transparency framework that should be improved |
Recommendation for improvement |
|---|---|
|
No recommendations are made. |
[3] OECD (2021), BEPS Action 5 on Harmful Tax Practices - Terms of Reference and Methodology for the Conduct of the Peer Reviews of the Action 5 Transparency Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparency-framework.pdf.
[2] OECD (2015), Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.
[1] OECD/Council of Europe (2011), The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264115606-en.